The Determination of Class

[dragon wench]

I have gotten into this debate with various friends and academic acquaintances and I thought it might be interesting to introduce the topic here.

In your opinion, what determines social class?

Unlike many people with leftist leanings, I disagree with the notion that class is wholly linked to economic status, I am no pure Marxist. I generally think that class is as much defined by lifestyle and attitude. Certainly, financial means do sometimes dictate lifestyle, but not always.
Just as much, IMO, is based on perspective or outlook. For example, two people with an interest in the outdoors and good wines might have little in common from a financial standpoint, but shared interests and values will frequently bring them together.

Thoughts?

[ik911]

I think it has to do with education a lot. Maybe it differs from country to country and also the importance of class may deviate? I'm not too sure about classes though and I don't think they're very important where I live.

[Magrus]

Age and environmental factors play a great role in things. For example:

When I was younger, there were a few groups. Rich and popular, popular, jocks, freaks, poor people and geeks. Now, I have friends from each group and while I generally don't hang out with all of them at the same time, we mix fairly well together. My best friend has a very wealthy family, was a cheerleader and a singer in a ska band, yet her family made her buy everything for herself rather than spoil her. She fit into a good number of those groups and continues to do so.

A lot of times, I fit in with all the guys on the baseball and football teams just because I was smarter than them and if they ever got stuck on a problem in lunch, I'd be willing to teach them how to answer it from sheer boredom. We had really nothing in common whatsoever though.

I think maturity is the key thing though in social classing. A less mature person will see differences and try to define and segregate people into groups. Someone who is more mature, may see the differences, and look at them as a manner in which they may enrich their social experiences. If you are surrounded by mature people, chances are it won't matter how people may group you. You can still congregate with, talk to, and enjoy the company of people who are far different from you.

In my experience though, money, maturity level and interests define social classes. Someone who is rich often has habits and interests that are beyond the means of those who aren't rich. Someone who is more mature than another person generally isn't happy with the less immature person and ends up frustrated. People with similar interests generally gravitate towards one another because of those similarities.

[Cuchulain82]

I think it has a lot to do with the type of worldview a person adheres to, and therefore can only be seen in the context of the value in question. By this I mean that different societies define class based upon variable criteria. Consider the Victorian movement in the US- the only important factor in determining class was the social factor- family name, titles, etc. People who had been relatively normal a few decades earlier suddenly had more money than they could possibly imagine (Carnegies, Vanderbilts, etc). They foced pseudo-European ideals on their society and created the Victorian upper class, one that had little to do with anything beyond what was socially acceptable. Victorians would rather die than risk a social faux pas.

Today, however, American society defines class in terms of Intellectual and Monetary values. If you have a PhD or are "Dr. So-and-So" then you are instantly considered to be of a class that is beyond the "average Joe". The same can be said of someone who is very wealthy- there is a whole class of people who are desirable because they have money. Musicians, porn stars, business moguls... the have celebrity or semi-celebrity status because they are so wealthy, ie: Paris Hilton.

[Luis Antonio]

Depends on what you're analyzing, DW, so you may have tons of kinds of classifications.

For example, to determine who can buy your product, economic.

To determine how he's gonna use the product, behavioral patterns.

To determine how many people will use in the family, age/behavior

To determine reaction to a new product, behavioral again...

In the end when you push everything to an economic base for comparison you're simplifying it. Because, if you potentially have money you potentially buy lots of things, wether or not they are inside your usual behavior habits, or inside the "number of uses" or "cases" in your age group.

I've studied a little marketing, and I disagree with many things they say on the books, I'll come up to this later... I'm in a hurry, shouldnt be on the board now

[winter rose]

I think that for the most part, social class was and still is based on economic status. However, it is changing now - where it is being determined based on not the people but rather the person.

In my opinion what determines social class is not what people have, but what they do with it. Im completely against the whole 'money' or 'family name' defines a person's social class.

I personally think it should be based on the person - not the factors that are beyond his or her control.

[stormcloud]

i'd say 80% wealth 20% lifestyle

a beggar with a billion bucks aint no poor folk. or is he?

[Dottie]

A simple cultural or demographical difference is not enough to say people are of different classes. Imo the word 'class' suggests a difference in power. If money gives you power than economy is a class separator, if education gives you power that is a separator etc etc.

I agree with IK that today I think education matters quite a bit, but I wouldn't say the importance of money is all gone either.

[jopperm2]

Education does play into class. Take a look at teachers, or government workers, or police. They are afforded a higher class than their income would suggest.

Also power. The top military officers in the US make something like $200k. Certainly nothing to scoff at, but they are at least as powerful and have similar class as someone in business with a much higher income.

Public defenders make little money, but they are still given class at a similar level as other attourneys.

There are other examples, but certainly money is not the only factor. It does however determine standing in other factors.

[C Elegans]

The definition I use of class, is as I was taught when I studies sociology - social class is a factor that determines and differentiate behaviour. Belonging to class means belonging to a set of cultural values, so to speak. Thus, certain choices, values and ideas are attached to these cultures.

In Sweden, the social democrats strived for a class-less society. In some regards, they succeded. A family's finacial situation does not determine whether the kids get a higher education or not, or what job they choose, or how many kids they get. Thus, money has to a large extent been removed from the class differential factors. What we do have in Sweden though is a strong geographical class differentiaton. There are upper class and lower class areas, especially in the cities, and you almost never see any exchanges between these populations. An upper class family will simply never happen to move to a lower class area, and this is not mainly due to house/flat prices, it is pure cultural condition. Often, I see people with "lower" or "working class" background that find it unpleasant to even enter the traditional upper class areas downtown. There are major differences between rural and urban areas.

Another defining factor here is Sweden are interests. Certain hobbies are viewed as posh, whereas others are viewed as cheap and low. In all, I would say your social class consists of your profession/educational level, where you live and what hobbies you have. Money doesn't change anything, nor does "celebrity". Businessmen, pop stars, reality show celebrities, models or other people who make a lot of money, are not viewed as upper class. On the other hand, the old noble families will always be viewed as upper class even if they are broke and hardly own the shoes they stand in anymore. A high education like a PhD in an area people view as academic (ie medicine, history, maths as opposed to business degrees) will also place you in the upper class.

Sadly, class like gender or etnic/racial stereotyping are often internalised and lead to self-fulfilling prophecies and an urge to behave according to the norms in the social class you were born in. Conformism is as important in class issues as in gender or other group issues. Sweden is a country where movement between social classes is very easy compared to for instance the UK or the US, which makes it a suitable place for studying the phenomena of class change.

Contrary to what one (at least I) would have believed, it is not more socially acceptable to change from lower to higher class, than the other way around. The working class family from a rural area, whos son becomes a barrister are equally unaccepting as the upper class family whos son wants to become an industry worker. Social class is strongly knit to identity and values.

So in the class-less society, social class is not really socioeconomic class but instead, it has become a culture with its set values, moral and behaviour patterns - much like a religion or an ideology. As such, it still determines people's behaviour to a large extent.

Even though it differs between cultures what factors define social classes, sociologists say people of the same social class have more in common than people from the same country or with the same religion. Studies show that people identify themselves first as belonging to a a species, human, then as belonging to a sex, male or female, and third as belonging to a social class. Other studies show that people living in big cities all over the world, have more common with each other than they have with their respective countrymen in rural areas.

[Magrus]

Personally, I have no problem with rich or poor people, depending how they act individually. I have rich friends, and poor friends. They're my friends because they're wonderful people, regardless of wealth.

However...there are differences between them. How they were raised, how they view the world, etc. It creates an impact.

I live in an area, or did a few years ago, I'm about 30 miles east of that area now, where old "Family" money (I.E. the mob) still has a hold on a lot of families. You'll see kids in school sporting a rolex and $700 outfits at age 13 talking about their father's body shop in and think "gee, I wonder where his dad got the money for THAT fixing someones brakes".

The main city around here is filled with old money, all inherited from a few generations back. Those generations ago built the industries here that keep the city alive, and the newer ones live off their inheritance. There is a definate class distinction, and walking two blocks down could see you from being surrounded by mansions to just 3 streets away from the roughest area within a 500 mile radius. This city was rated highest in murder's for the COUNTRY a few years ago. Tension runs high between classes here.

If you have money, and wander into a bad neighborhood, you don't stop. I've wandered through NYC with more than $200 in hand, and visible, with not one problem. If I wander through the city near me with $50 dollar shoes, I'll end up unconscious in an alley somewhere without them if I'm lucky.

The poor people are stuck in a rut, and they know it. Why? The people with money control the hiring of others, and are bringing people INTO the city for jobs, rather than hiring who's here. Unemployment numbers are slowly rising among locals and classes are becoming more and more seperated by money.

The suburbs are not nearly so bad, but it's a ripple effect. Selling drugs is another part time job for a lot of people. A way to pay rent, while your real job pays for food and your car.

So, your stuck with the groups of the people who have money, the people who need money to survive, and the people who are ok, but struggling essentially. I fit into the middle group, and have essentially for my whole life. I've been poor, but I've had food and shelter my whole life, I can say that at least.

You can see a DEFINATE difference in those who have never experienced poverty and those who have. Compassion and understanding of those around is something of a shock course in those who have experienced poverty. Not to mention being jaded and bitter on top of that.

To say money isn't a big issue, at least where I am, is a complete and total lie. I can be a friend of a rich person, and in fact I have befriended one or two, but that is only because they were raised in a manner that showed them the value of a dollar, and compassion. Far too many with money don't get that education. People around them are seen as tools to get money, and money isn't worth a thing. Daddy pays for everything, so who cares.